Field of the Invention
The field of the invention is personnel screening, intruder detection and combat identification.
The problem of screening unauthorized personnel from large organizations or military perimeters is complicated when potential intruders or adversaries obtain access to organizational clothing or uniforms. Even situations in which personnel security badging can be used to identify unauthorized personnel onsite, the use of stolen or fake uniforms can allow intruders to approach close enough to cause great harm to access point and other personnel. The threat is even greater in the field where adversaries posing as friendly forces can approach formations and inflict many casualties. Security controls and safe distances can be compromised when personnel rely on the organizational clothing or uniforms as a first level of screening for personnel who are not close enough for inspection of personnel security badging.
This problem is particularly costly in police and military situations and has been the basis of many casualties caused by intruders or insurgent forces who have gained access to the uniforms of indigenous or allied forces. This has often led to deadly results with the increase in suicide improvised explosive attacks within the last few decades. These type of attacks threaten security forces in all settings, including highly secure locations such as police stations and military compounds as well as during operations in the field. In all parts of the world, intruders who have access to police or military uniforms can cause great harm. For many years, police and military forces have relied on personnel security badging and screening to identify unauthorized personnel who are wearing official uniforms. Governments in many parts of the world have also established controls over the sources of supply for official uniforms in order to reduce the vulnerability of their security forces. More advanced militaries have relied on advanced technology to mitigate these threats. This includes friendly force or combat identification systems during operations in the field and various camera, biometric, and other personnel screening technologies at security checkpoints or at the access points to secure compounds. Many security controls which have reduced this threat in more advanced countries have not been able to be widely used in less developed countries because of cost or complexity. It is also difficult to rely on the control of uniform sources of supply in many developing parts of the world because of a lack of infrastructure or poorly developed civilian or military administration systems in these parts of the world. It is also true that the opportunity to rely on advanced technology or even simple uniform control procedures to reduce these threats is greatly diminished when conflict is ongoing in a country where a government does not exert control over all areas or where an international force is working with local authorities to train local security forces and re-establish security throughout a region.
Inventions in the prior art concerning personnel identification and screening or other technologies have not fully addressed these problems. In particular, the continuing number of security personnel who are being killed routinely throughout the world by adversaries or insurgents wearing friendly uniforms underscores that past inventions have not directly addressed this problem nor aided people with normal skill in the field to find an effective solution. The present invention believes that the most effective solution to this problem is a novel use of a technology that can be integrated and worn with the uniforms, that is itself very low cost and also does not require expensive technology to use. It is important that a solution based on a wearable technology which is tied to the authorized uniform be used to address the problem when uniforms are obtained illegitimately by hostile forces or individuals. Past inventions which are centered on the authorized users but not a part of the uniforms will suffer from unauthorized personnel obtaining official uniforms when they are not worn by the intended security personnel (for example, lost or stolen from the laundry). Low cost is very important for a uniform-based solution because of the number of uniforms in use. In addition to the use of wearable technology attached to the uniform, another important aspect of a solution which is effective at all times will be one which can be used with normal equipment available to security forces both in the garrison as well as in the field during operations. Complex or costly technology used for screening in advanced and developed nations will not work in most parts of the world with existing resources and training of those security forces. An additional aspect of an invention which solves this problem is that the application of the technology must be tamper proof. The invention will not solve the problem caused by adversaries or insurgents if it does not provide protections against tampering by those forces.
Description of Related Art
The following discussion of past personnel identification and screening approaches in the prior art explains how these approaches do not adequately address the problem nor disclose a means of addressing this problem by someone skilled in the art. In each case, the unique aspects of the problem at hand which are not addressed in the prior art and are only addressed with the novel approach disclosed in the current invention are explained.
Access Point Control Technology
A number of past inventions provide inventions for devices or methods to be used when screening personnel at access points. Many of these inventions rely on either advanced sensing systems, advanced terminal technologies (card readers, computer terminals, etc.), or both for improved identification and screening. The advanced sensing systems rely on 2-way signals (receive+transmit) or interrogation and response, such as x-ray, laser, magnetic anomaly, nuclear resonance or other 2-way means. These systems require equipment and technology which is not supported by security forces or their training in many parts of the world. Similarly, the access control inventions which rely on special terminal equipment such as card readers or computer and software are not easily implemented in many parts of the world. Additionally, these inventions do not address the need for intruder detection during field operations. All of the inventions in this category are by their nature designed for an improved access control point where conditions are much different than those in the field. For this reason, none of these inventions will address the identification and detection needs in the field in most cases. The current invention includes a novel combination of features which uniquely address detection of intruders wearing unauthorized or compromised uniforms far beyond what the technology in the prior art alone can. The 1-way identification signal of the current invention which is integrated with the uniform and provides pass code protection, timeout and tamper proof protections against a threat at a distance prevents an intruder from exploiting a compromised identification signal that other access point technology would pass without detection or would allow an intruder the proximity within safe distances to do great harm. The simplicity of the current invention and its intended use with existing tactical equipment further enhances the usefulness of the invention, but the novel combination of features which makes this invention ideally suited to eliminate a threat from an intruder in a uniform sets it apart from the prior art in this category. The current inventor believes that all access control inventions methods and technology to-date fail to incorporate the novel features of the current invention which are uniquely designed to address this threat at an access point where other inventions in the prior art are not. The following are examples from recent prior art which demonstrates this. A note is provided next to each to explain what technology is used in the prior art in place of the novel combination in the current invention.
U.S. Pat. No. 8,111,156, Song (pyro sensors, microphones & accelerometers), U.S. Pat. No. 7,898,385, Kocher (RF, imaging & body position), U.S. Pat. No. 7,605,709, Toliver (biometrics, x-ray, pulse induction, ion mobility spectrometry & document scanning), U.S. Pat. No. 7,365,536, Crowley and Lathrop (magnetic anomaly, nuclear sensors, metal detector), U.S. Pat. No. 6,421,453, Kanevsky et. al. (biometric, gestures & password authentication), U.S. Pat. No. 5,056,141, Dyke (word-pair voice recognition), European patent CN102324010, Huaijiang et. al. (RF & optical frequency), US patent application 2010219241, Corwin et. al. (id card & bar code), European patent EP0138525, Rudland (IR card reader), European patent EP2619558, Rayner (x-ray), European patent application MX2012010644, Katowski et. al. (x-ray), European patent application MX2012010642, Gray et. al. (x-ray), U.S. Pat. Nos. 8,135,112 and 7,796,733, Hughes (both x-ray), U.S. Pat. Nos. 7,809,109, 7,796,734, 7,593,506 and 7,505,562, Mastronardi et. al. (all x-ray), U.S. Pat. No. 7,889,053, McGrath et. al. (Microwave biometrics)
Each of these examples in the prior art clearly suffer from using identification or screening technology which does not provide safe distance needed to defeat the threat of intruders who are intending to cause harm. All of these methods and inventions are also costly, complex or advanced technologies which are not available to most security forces throughout the world. In addition to these more easily disposed cases in the prior art, U.S. Pat. Nos. 7,849,619, 7,204,425, and 5,973,600, Mosher et. al., disclose a series of inventions proposed for personnel screening and identification which require further discussion. In the Mosher prior art, an identification appliance is described which can be “worn” by individuals. However, the means of wearing described in the Mosher prior art is based on a band which can be worn on the wrist, arm, ankle, neck, etc. and it is not described as a device which is integrated as part of the user's uniform. Mosher also provides for the use of non-visible identification signals, including optical and radio-frequency signals. However, the inventions are designed for personnel screening and all are intended to be read at close distance. Mosher recognizes that a wearable device based on a band can be easily pilfered and suffer tampering. He includes tamper-proofing of the apparatus based on connections and electrical signals in his description and claims. His prior art includes password and Personal Identification Number (PIN) protection and tamper-proofing connections and couplings in the description, but not in the claims. Several of these features are similar to the current invention. However, Mosher's prior art fails to include all of the key features which are needed to defeat the threat posed by intruders in stolen or fake uniforms. Most notably, Mosher fails to disclose the novel combination of a password-protected, tamper-proof identification signal with a device which is integrated as part of a user's uniform and which supports identification at safe ranges. Without combining the non-visible identification signal which has PIN-protection and tamper-proofing with a means to integrate the identification function with the uniform and also support identification at safe distances, Mosher fails to effectively address the real-world problems presented by intruders. The current invention's novel combination of all of these features addresses this threat where Mosher fails.
Biometric Screening Technology
Biometric screening can be an effective means of identification at close range. However, these methods do not meet the need to identify intruders at safe distances in access control points nor do they provide effective means to provide friendly force identification at tactical ranges in the field. The novel aspects of the current invention which allow friendly force identification and intruder detection at stand off or tactical distances makes it superior to all biometric screening technologies and methods. For these reasons, the inventor believes that all biometric screening or identification methods involving contact with the potential intruder or are only effective within an unsafe, short range suffer a fatal deficiency which are addressed by the novel aspects of the current invention. The following are examples from recent prior art within this category which demonstrates this.    U.S. Pat. No. 7,494,061, Reinhold, U.S. Pat. No. 6,871,287, Ellingson, U.S. Pat. No. 6,655,585, Shinn, U.S. Pat. No. 6,119,096, Mann et. al., U.S. Pat. No. 6,018,739, Mccoy, U.S. Pat. No. 5,229,764, Matchett et. al., and European patent application DE202005007113, TreptowOptical Sensors and Readers
This category of the prior art covers all identification and screening technologies which use optical reading devices or codes. Traditional optical codes and identification technology is not suited to addressing the unique problems for friendly force identification and intruder detection because they use codes or optical signals which are visible to humans. These inventions require that a code or an optical signal be read by a person or a card reader device at close ranges. These aspects defeat the viability of the prior art in this category for two reasons. First, the codes or optical signals in the visible spectrum are more easily exploited in a tactical setting or spoofed by an intruder than optical devices operating in the non-visible range. Second, the inventions in this category usually require the unsafe distances to be effective as explained in the Biometric category above. An additional impediment to some of the prior art in this category is the need for some of these systems to combine optical identification methods with other close range methods, such as biometric screening or computer passwords. This is often required because the prior art systems can be lost or stolen and they do not include the pass code protection and timeout features of the current invention to prevent them from being exploited. For example, U.S. Pat. No. 4,837,568 by Snaper discloses a personnel identification device which can be lost or stolen and must be used with other identification means based on biometrics or computer passwords to protect against exploitation. The novel use of an optical signal in the non-visible range which is effective at safe distances or tactical ranges separates the current invention from this category of past inventions that do not solve the problem. Further, those systems described in the prior art which rely on other close-range identification methods to protect against device exploitation do not use the novel features of the current invention which defeat exploitation without using any of these other close-range methods. The inventor believes that all prior art which relies on a visible optical code or signal and those which are only effective at close distance to the prospective intruder differ substantially from the novel aspects of the current invention. The following are examples from recent prior art within this category which demonstrates this.    U.S. Pat. No. 4,837,568, Snaper, European patent application DE202005007113, TreptowInterrogating Identification and Interrogation Friend or Foe (IFF) Systems
Many IFF systems are described in the prior art. A key aspect of IFF is the interrogation, making the method for identification a 2-way communication. The current invention uses an active identification signal in most embodiments to provide a 1-way identification method. Furthermore, in all embodiments, the identification function is integrated with the user's uniform. All IFF systems in the prior art rely on components which are not integrated within the user's uniform, either in whole or in part. Even if the IFF equipment used for identification can be carried by an individual soldier, it is not integrated with the uniform so that it will aid in intruder detection if the uniform is lost or stolen by adversaries or insurgents. For these reasons, any prior art which relies on traditional IFF systems and technology is not prejudicial to the novelty or uniqueness of the current invention which uses a wearable identification signal that is integrated into the user's uniform and provides pass code protection, timeout and tamper-proof features to aid in intruder detection if the uniform is lost or stolen. The following prior art are examples of IFF systems which fall into this category:    U.S. Pat. Nos. 7,831,150 and 7,308,202, Roes et. al., U.S. Pat. Nos. 7,224,308 and 6,816,106, Butler, U.S. Pat. No. 5,648,862, Owen, U.S. Pat. No. 4,955,000, Nastrom, European patent WO02084324, Tatum et. al., U. S. patent application 20120189312, Maryfield et. al.RF Identification
Many RF Identification methods are found in the prior art. Most of these are for object identification and do not describe personnel identification methods. For those that do describe personnel methods, many of these are for personnel identification or screening at close range. Passive RFID systems fall into one or both of these groups due to the distance limitations of this technology. The only RFID systems which support a stand off range similar to the current invention are active RFID systems. One embodiment of the current invention includes an active RF identification signal. However, the use of the RF identification signal in the current invention is in Passive Reader Active Tag (PRAT) or beacon mode. It uses a 1-way identification signal method like the other embodiments of the invention and it does not rely on an active reader interrogation to initiate 2-way communications. For these reasons, only the prior art which involves the PRAT systems can be similar to the current invention. However, if the PRAT systems in the prior art do not include tags which are integrated with a user's clothing, then it is unlikely to be an impediment of the current invention. Most RFID tags which are integrated structurally with the object of interest (person, animal or object) are not intended for beacon mode operation or PRAT systems. Those that are designed for continuous broadcast of the identification signal. This is substantially different than the current invention which uses its novel features of pass code protection and time-limited operation to disable the identification function in the RF identification embodiment of the invention just like the preferred embodiments using optical signals. Unless the RFID system incorporates the same novel combination of features found in the current invention which contribute directly to friendly-force identification and intruder detection even when user clothing has been compromised, such prior art does not prejudice the novelty and uniqueness of the current invention. The following prior art are specific examples of RFID systems which have some similar features with the current invention (human wearable, but not attached, and Kotik includes tamper-proof features). However, neither of these examples include the novel combination of all of the key features of the current invention which prevent exploitation of a user's uniform (including pass code protection, timeout and 1-way signaling only in these cases):    U.S. Pat. No. 7,316,358, Kotik et. al., U.S. Pat. No. 5,973,598, BeigelIntruder Detection Systems
Most intrusion detection systems in the prior art are based on fixed or specialized camera, imaging or other equipment used for monitoring of facilities or homes. Many involve motion detection and alarm and not authorized personnel identification. Those that involve cameras, imaging, face recognition, and similar technologies can have some application to personnel identification and screening. However, these systems differ markedly from the current invention because they do not include man-portable or even wearable components and they are not designed to operate in the field or at remote temporary security locations such as a checkpoint. The use of some of these technologies at an established access control point is similar to how the current invention supports friendly-force identification and intruder detection at a base or compound access point. However, since the prior art in this category does not include the wearable, 1-way identification devices which are part of the key features of the current invention, none are thought to address the intruder detection problem described in this invention nor present a problem to the novelty of the current invention. The following are examples from the prior art which illustrate this.    U.S. Pat. No. 8,542,109, Butler et. al., U.S. Pat. No. 8,354,928, Morcom, U.S. Pat. No. 8,258,949, Jaynes, U.S. Pat. No. 6,593,852, Gutta et. al.Non-Identification Badging
Prior art which involves badging technology fall into two broad subcategories. Those inventions within the prior art that deal with the construction, placement or wearing of a badge but do not describe any unique identification function are not relevant to the problem described above or an obstacle to the current invention. The badging technology in the prior art which also includes identification functions are the second subcategory. Badging in this latter subcategory can include those which are only useful at close range and those which are used for identification at farther ranges. The badging requiring close range use for successful identification differs from the current invention because the current invention relies on features which make it effective at stand off ranges. But the badging which is intended for farther ranges is also not prejudicial to the current invention because these badging systems with longer range use do not include the combination of non-visible identification signals, pass code security and timeout features with a device which is integrated with the user's uniform which make the current invention uniquely suited to defeat the stolen or fake uniform threat. The following are examples of both of the subcategories within the prior art for badging technology which do not have the novel features of the current invention for the problem described above.    European patent GB 1044443 (A) Atomic Energy Commission, U. S. patent application 20060087410, Garcia et. al.Non-Individual Combat Identification
Many efforts have been made to reduce the confusion on the battlefield by creating a means to identify and distinguish friendly forces from adversaries. In recent years these technologies have become known as combat identification. The original combat identification systems were designed for vehicles or formations. The prior art in this category do not provide a means of individual identification for personnel who are not mounted in the supported vehicles. Any prior art involving combat identification which does not support individual, dismounted personnel does not relate to the current invention. The following prior art is in this category and has no bearing on the current invention.    U.S. Pat. No. 8,462,042, Delong & Blythe, U.S. Pat. No. 6,097,330, Kiser, U.S. Pat. No. 5,686,722, Dobois et al., U.S. Pat. No. 5,274,379, R. Carbonneau et al., U.S. Pat. No. 5,459,470, Wooton et al., U.S. Pat. No. 5,819,164, Sun et al., U.S. Pat. No. 4,851,849, Albersdoerfer, U.S. Pat. No. 4,694,297, SewardsIndividual Soldier Combat Identification
Prior art involving combat identification for the individual soldier is related to the current invention. Most of the prior art involves attempts to move the traditional combat identification systems from vehicles and integrate them with the foot soldier. For this reason, most in this category are similar to the IFF systems and involve some form of RF or IR interrogation. Some also involve the reduction of communications equipment to be portable. However, for the reasons that the 2-way IFF systems are not similar to the novel features of the current invention, the prior art in this category is not similar to the current invention. Combat identification systems which are not integrated with the soldier's clothing and which are still mounted on equipment, even if handheld, do not incorporate the novel integration of the identification signal with the uniform as in the current invention. Also, the interrogating 2-way methods used in the prior art is not similar to the current invention because all but one embodiment of the current invention relies on 1-way identification signals to more effectively defeat the intruder threat. As in the case of the prior art for IFF systems, unless a combat identification system from the prior art includes the novel features of the current invention including a wearable identification signal that is integrated into the user's uniform, use of 1-way signaling in most embodiments and pass code, timeout and tamper-proof security features in all embodiments to prevent compromise, the prior art cannot apply to the current invention. The following prior art in this category are combat identification systems which may have some similar features, but do not have the combination of features which makes the current invention novel for addressing the intruder detection problem.    U.S. Pat. No. 8,184,981 Ivtsenkov et. al., U.S. Pat. Nos. 8,115,697 and 7,196,655, Hayles & Omara, U.S. Pat. No. 5,966,226, Gerber, European patent WO0133748, Radomsky, U. S. patent 20090045996, Ivtsenko
Each of these examples in the prior art clearly suffer from one or both of the problems explained above for most of the prior art in this category. In addition to these more easily disposed cases in the prior art, there are a few combat identification systems which are worth further discussion to make it more clear how these significantly differ from the novel features of the current invention. Each of the following combat identification systems from the prior art include one or two features which are similar to the current invention. However, the following discussion will show that each one of these inventions is still lacking in its ability to effectively address the threat of intruder exploitation of stolen or fake uniforms because none of them contain all of the key features which are required to defeat this threat. How the current invention does this compared to each of these systems is explained in the following.
U.S. Pat. No. 7,983,565, Varshneya, discloses laser ranging and 2-way optical communications based on lasers for combat identification and other operation. The 2-way optical communications method used in Varshneya is not similar to the 1-way identification method used in most embodiments of the current invention nor is it comparable in its effects to the non-visible signaling method defined in the preferred embodiment of the current invention. Varshneya describes a retro-reflective method for use with his laser device which is similar to one embodiment of the current invention that uses retro-reflective or other reflective surfaces for 2-way optical identification signals. Varshneya includes this method in the description of the invention but not in the claims. He also includes a general reference to password protection of some of the equipment used in his system in the description of the invention but not in its claims. The reflective methods and the password protection are the only similarities to the current invention. However, Varshneya's invention does not cover the novel combination of all features used by the current invention for identification and intruder detection. Specifically, Varshneya's system is based on equipment which is mounted or integrated with combat equipment. It is not a wearable system which is integrated into the user's clothing like the current invention. Varshneya does not contemplate nor disclose a time limit for the password protection which he discusses briefly. By not integrating his system components in the uniform and by not describing specific steps for tamper proofing like in the current invention, Varshneya's inventions suffers from the common problem of pilfering, tampering and exploitation which all portable equipment-based systems suffer. Additionally, Varshneya's intended use for the invention is substantially different than the current invention. In Varshneya, the invention uses a 2-way exchange of a code of the day word using his laser-based communications. This is much more of a complex identification function than the current invention which relies on observation of a 1-way non-visible or visible identification signal. The complexity in Varshneya's intended use compared to the applications of the current invention shows that the current invention is much more likely to be useful to a less technologically-advanced security force where cost, availability of equipment and training are factors. For these reasons, it is believed that prior art in Varshneya does not disclose the same type of novel combination of key features of the current invention including the integration of an identification signal with a user's clothing, pass code protection, time-limits, and tamper-proof identification signals which is uniquely suited for dealing with the threat of stolen or fake uniforms in tactical and security scenarios. Further, the 2-way complex communication described in Varshneya is substantially different than the 1-way methods for identification used in all but one embodiment of the current invention. Yet even in the single embodiment of the current invention which uses 2-way identification based on reflective surfaces, the current invention uses a novel combination of features for an identification and intruder detection system which Varshneya's use of reflective surfaces does not contemplate. The novel use of a pass code protected, time-limited, tamper-proof identification signal even for the embodiment of the current invention which uses reflective surfaces is not found in Varshneya's prior art nor an obvious extension of his system.
U.S. Pat. No. 6,701,649, Brosi, also involves combat identification based on reflective IR signaling. Brosi claims attachment of his invention to head gear or a uniform, which is similar to the use of an identification signal which is integrated with the user's uniform in the current invention. Like Varshneya, the reflective surface of Brosi is only similar to the single embodiment of the current invention which relies on reflective surfaces. As with Varshneya's reflective surface, the use of a reflective surface alone with identification systems does not make it similar to the current invention. Brosi does not include the novel combination of features of the current invention in his prior art. Even though it is based on a signal which attaches to the uniform, the identification signal is not pass code protected, is not time-limited and not tamper-proof like the current invention. All other embodiments of the current invention also do not rely on a reflective surface for identification as in Brosi. For these reasons, Brosi's prior art does not cover the novel combination of features and invention of the current invention which are uniquely suited to identification and intruder detection.
U.S. Pat. No. 5,414,405, Hoggs is similar to Brosi in that it provides a means of attaching a personnel identification device to a user's uniform. Hoggs uses non-visible light for his identification system in place of the reflective surface in Brosi. The non-visible identification signal in Hoggs is similar to the use of non-visible identification signals in most of the embodiments of the current invention. However like Brosi, Hoggs does not cover the novel combination of features which the current invention uses for identification and intruder detection. The current invention provides a non-visible identification signal which is wearable and integrated with the user's uniform, but this system is also password-protected, time-limited and tamper-proofed. This novel combination of features in the current invention are not covered by Hoggs and are not obvious extensions of his prior art.
U.S. Pat. No. 5,299,227, Rose, discloses a 1-way signaling system based on non-visible signals for identification of individual combatants. This is similar to the 1-way, non-visible signaling used by the current invention. Like Varshneya however, Rose relies on attaching the identification signal to equipment or outer vests rather than integrating the system as part of the clothing. This presents the same problems as other similar inventions: it is removable and can be pilfered, suffer tampering, or replaced and exploited. There is no password protection or timeout of the identification signal in Rose's prior art. It is also the case that the invention of Rose is designed not to work with existing non-visible viewing systems such as night vision. This means that Rose is lacking the critical need to be able to be used without costly or special extra reading equipment. For these reasons, the prior art in Rose does not compare to the novel combination of features in the current invention including the integration of an identification signal with a user's uniform, pass code protection, time-limited operation, and tamper-proofing and alerts and it is not effective for use by security forces which do not have specialized or costly viewing equipment.
Identification Beacons
Prior art exists for beaconing devices which are carried by individuals and are used to aid in search and rescue operations. Many of these devices are designed to make an individual or groups location known to the searchers. In these cases, identification of the individual or the party is not the central purpose of the device. In particular, if the device can be shared by members of a group in order to help search parties find the group, these devices are not particularly related to individual identification. On the other hand, there are some beaconing technologies which aid in the identification of the individual in addition to helping the search team find that person. This latter type of device could more rightly be referred to as identification beacons and may have some features similar to the present invention, even though the principal purpose of these latter devices is still related to use in finding a lost person. However, no prior art in this category has been found to possess all of the key features of the current invention which make it novel. In particular, very few of the devices in this category are integrated with the clothing or uniform. Many are devices which can be attached to clothing or carried on the body of the individual, but very few of them can be considered integrated with the clothing like the current invention. Similarly, many of these devices rely on visible signals or use signals which are not intended to be used covertly or have low probability of intercept by and adversary. Of those which are integrated with the clothing and do use a non-visible or non-obvious signal, these do not possess all of the other key features of the current invention, including the use of a signal which cannot be intercepted by an adversary or the use of password or pass code protected, time limited, secure features with various forms of tamper-proofing which prevent an unauthorized person from compromising and exploiting the identification device. The following are examples from this category of prior art which may be considered.    U.S. Pat. No. 5,929,777, Reynolds, U.S. Pat. No. 7,336,189, Thomas, U. S. patent application 20150265860, Kennedy et al, U. S. patent application 20130109427, Matus.
U.S. Pat. No. 5,929,777, Reynolds, is a personal infrared beacon which is attached to an individual's clothing or carried in a hand-held device. The intention of Reynolds is to design a device which is mobile, easy to use and low cost. These goals are also achieved in the current invention and the arguments which Reynolds uses to overcome its prior art would similarly distinguish the current invention from that art. Like the current invention, Reynolds also discloses the use of a non-visible signal based on infrared light which is both not easily seen by hostile forces and can be detected by friendly forces using already existing tactical equipment. However, there are several key differences which distinguish the current invention as novel compared to Reynolds. Reynolds does not disclose a wearable identification device which is integrated with the clothing or uniform of the user. This is not only a clear design distinction of the current invention, but by relying on being attached to the clothing or carried separately, this is one flaw of several which prevent Reynolds from disclosing the type of security features and tamper-proofing which are key to the current invention. Because it is not integrated with the user's clothing, an adversary can easily compromise the identification device and exploit it against friendly forces. Furthermore, Reynolds does not intend to disclose and does not claim the other security and tamper-proofing features of the current invention which make the current invention much more novel for use in a hostile environment where compromise and exploitation is likely.
Other differences between the current invention and the device disclosed in Reynolds are substantial and further distinguish the novelty of the current invention. The use of the device in Reynolds does not require authentication and the device does not include pass code protected, time limited security features against exploitation and use by an enemy agent. Further, Reynolds does not disclose any tamper-proofing similar to the current invention which would prevent an adversary from using the Reynolds device to impersonate friendly forces and lure a search and rescue team into an ambush. Reynolds discloses a keypad input with his device, but the keypad is used for disabling the distress signal. One is not required by Reynolds to authenticate that the user is authorized to use the device or to input a code every so often to allow continued use of the device. There are also no tamper-proofing features as in the current invention which will disable the device operation to prevent an unauthorized user from using the device. Unlike the current invention which uses novel features to identify unauthorized personnel from friendly forces at a security checkpoint or in the field, the Reynolds patent focuses on emergency response conditions and positively identifying a known personnel who is lost or in distress. This prior art does not provide identification in a non-emergency situation as with the current invention and because it lacks several of the key security and tamper-proofing features of the current invention, Reynolds cannot identify an unauthorized person who has compromised the device and is using it to gain advantage over friendly forces. For all of these reasons, the prior art in Reynolds does not compare to the novel combination of features in the current invention including the integration of an identification signal with a user's uniform, pass code protection, time-limited operation, and tamper-proofing and it is not effective for use by security forces at security access points or in the field to identify both authorized and unauthorized users.
U.S. Pat. No. 7,336,189, Thomas, claims a method for locating persons based on a body borne beacon which is detected at long range against a differentiated background. Thomas is intended to locate a person by detecting signals at great distances among a background where the beacon signal stands out. Without any detail, Thomas discloses the attachment of the beacon to the persons clothing through painting or spraying it on. This is not as permanently integrated with the clothing as the device of the current invention, but if it was possible, it would be an integration approach with the person's apparel which is on a similar scale as the integrated device of the current invention. Although this may be considered similar, there are many differences between what is disclosed in Thomas' method and the current invention. The beacon disclosed in Thomas does not include security features which prevent its use by an unauthorized user or which help distinguish and adversary from a friendly person. Thomas does disclose the use of a non-visible signal, but it is intended primarily to avoid detection by the person being located, as in the use case described in the prior art for a prisoner who would not know that he was being located. This is a completely different intention and design from the current invention which uses non-visible signal to allow an authorized user who is cognizant of the device signal capabilities to identify himself with friendly forces while preventing an unauthorized user to be aware of the signal to friendly forces. Further, the beacon in Thomas has no pass code protection, timeout limited operations or any other tamper-proofing to prevent an unintended user from exploiting it against friendly forces as does the current invention. For example, if the prisoner described in Thomas who is wearing the beacon becomes aware that the beacon is borne on his clothing, he could change his clothing or he could have a decoy wear his clothing for him. The security and tamper-proofing features of the current invention uniquely prevent exploitation unlike Thomas. The present invention is also designed to be effective at ranges related to security checkpoints or between units in the field and the beacon disclosed in Thomas would not be expected to work well at these ranges due to the need for Thomas' beacon to be seen against a large background for it to be effective. For these reasons, Thomas does not compare to the novel combination of features in the current invention including the permanent integration of an identification signal with a user's uniform, pass code protection, time-limited operation, and tamper-proofing, it is not designed to protect against exploitation by unauthorized or unintended users and it is not effective for use by security forces at ranges required at security access points or in the field to identify both authorized and unauthorized users.
U. S. patent application 20150265860, Kennedy, discloses a safety system which includes an audible and visible alarm signal when a load under weight meets certain conditions during loading. This prior art involves an alert signal, but it is far from the individual beacons discussed above and still farther from the individual identification device of the current invention. Kennedy detects a problem and alerts one or more users, but it is not integrated with clothing, it is based on visible or obvious signaling, and it has no security features to prevent unauthorized use or tampering. For these reasons, Kennedy does not compare to the novel combination of features in the current invention including the permanent integration of an identification signal with a user's uniform, pass code protection, time-limited operation, and tamper-proofing, it is not designed to protect against exploitation by unauthorized users and it is not designed for use by security forces to identify both authorized and unauthorized users.
U. S. patent application 20130109427, Matus discloses methods based on a personal beacon which communicate with a mobile device or other computer. Matus includes the integration of the personal beacon in the users clothing like the current invention. However, Matus does not disclose a device which is suited for use by security forces at security access points or in the field for identifying authorized and unauthorized users like the current invention does. Indeed, the intent of Matus to design a method for continually monitoring of personal security beacons until one reaches a condition representing duress (for example, out of range, user inputs) is markedly different than the intent of the current invention which does not continuously monitor the identification devices but only uses the identification devices to identify a user when the user is approaching a security check point. Additionally, the methods Matus discloses include the use of non-visible electromagnetic communication, but the signal is not designed to avoid detection and exploitation by an adversary. Although the mobile computing devices disclosed by Matus are expected to have common authentication and timeout security features, no discussion of security features for the beacon itself is disclosed. Matus' personal beacon which is attached to or integrated with the user's clothing can be compromised and exploited with the clothing. There is no pass code protection, timeout limited operations or tamper-proofing features. For these reasons, Matus does not compare to the novel combination of features in the current invention including the non-continuous use of the device for identification, pass code protection, time-limited operation, and tamper-proofing, it is not designed to protect against exploitation by unauthorized users and it is not designed for use by security forces to identify both authorized and unauthorized users.
Several of the references in the category of identification beacons appear to detect a problem, then send a signal or activate a beacon to alert people. This concept of operation in the prior art is markedly different from the intent and design of the current invention. The current invention is not intended to detect a lost user or someone “under duress.” Actually, a user could be behaving not out of the ordinary, without any sign of duress and still be identified as a threat using the current invention. Further, the current invention does not require “duress” or another emergency activity to perform the identification function. These key differences between the prior art in the identification beacon category, as discussed above, should clearly distinguish the novel and unique elements of the current invention from the prior art of this kind.
As can be seen by the preceding exhaustive review of the prior art and the background of the current invention, no identification system in the prior art or found elsewhere is known today which provides a novel combination of all of the following key features that are needed to effectively address the need for identification and detection of intruders who are wearing stolen or fake uniforms. It is the intention of the current invention to provide a novel combination of all of these features and provide an effective solution which meets this need.                wearable        identity integrated with official uniform        pass code protected operation        automatic timeout after pass code expires        tamper proof and not pilferable/removable        provides alert signal if tampering or failure is detected        uses non-visible signaling        works at stand off and tactical ranges        optionally extremely low cost        optionally works with current equipment and training        optionally change mode between non-visible signaling methods and frequencies        